Re: WC8 (was Re: TECH: Testing again etc.)

Paul Bennett scripsit:

> On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 20:28:38 +0200, Isaac Penzev wrote:
> > May we know the phonetic values for all that
> > stuff? I'd also advise to reconsider using acutes with _t_, _d_ and
> > _k_...
[skips most of the chart once again]
> s^      z^      c^
> /S      Z       tS/
> kt      ct
> (see below)
> l       l-      lh      dlh
> /l      L\      K       K\/
>
> kt is the anticlick, a velaric alveolar egressive
> ct is an alveolar click
>
> One theory I was tinkering with was to use Italics instead of acutes, and
> Bold instead of under/overdot, but that's even less email-friendly.
Bad idea. To represent the real thing, use plain text Unicode. For practical
purposes, make ASCIIfication (in fact, you already have it).

> Comments, questions?
1. Think how to use _c_ more extensively; I've found it only in digraph _ct_.
2. Why use digraphs at all?
My suggestions:
kt > ƙ (K-wth-hook, U+0199)
ct > ƶ (Z-with-stroke, U+01B6)
lh > ľ (L-caron)
dlh > λ (Greek lamda, U+03BB)

And, avoiding extra acutes:
t' > ť (T-caron)
d' > ď (D-caron)
k' > ķ (K-cedilla)
g' > ģ (G-cedilla)

I leave phonology analysis for better experts :)

-- Yitzik

Reply